Just so there's no doubt, there will be an Adjacent Attacks Tournament set up sometime very soon. Lancehoch and I are currently figuring out exactly what the settings of the tournament are going to be.

On another note, so far 8 people have said that they would oppose the idea being implemented as an option since the poll was reset. However, I haven't seen any arguments against it since that same time. If you voted no, would you be so kind as to explain your reasoning?

Newly conquered countries cannot attack for the duration of the turn they are conquered on.For example, if lancehoch conquers Country A from n00blet in Round 4, then Country A cannot make any attacks until Round 5.In the event of mid-turn spoils-cashing, the troops received can be deployed on any regions as normal, but all regions are still restricted as they were at the beginning of the round.

Of course, these rules will not be upheld by the game engine itself. Each player who signs up for this tournament is required to limit their attacks to conform to the aforementioned rules for the entirety of every game played for the tournament. Any rules violation at any point in any game will result in the player automatically receiving 0 points for the game.

Each game log will be inspected by either myself or lancehoch, so do not try and break the rules when no one is looking Any player in any game that sees another player has broken the rules should post in the tournament thread, specifying the player, game, and round the infraction occurred. This will aid in our inspections, as these games tend to last a little bit longer than the average 4-player.For the final round, any games with Fog enabled will be completely inspected at the conclusion of the game, and if any infractions are found, the game will be redone as a 3-player with the offending player removed.

This tournament will consist of 16 players, separated into 4 equally sized groups. Each round, every group will play 4 4-player games. The scoring for each game will be as follows:

1st Place: 4 points2nd Place: 2 points3rd Place: 1 point

At the end of each round (after all 4 games have been completed), each player's score will be tallied, and the top two players from each group will advance to the next round. In the case of a tie, the following tiebreakers will be used, in this order: most wins, most eliminations, least amount of rounds taken to win.Each round will be played 2 games at a time, so Freemium members may join, as long as they leave 2 spots open for this tournament.

For every game played in the first two rounds, the set settings will be:

SequentialNo Fog

Each player chooses the map, card, and fortification settings for their one game pick. These decisions will then be the 4 games played by the group in that round. The settings can be changed or left the same between rounds.

However, for the final (third) round, players will also have the option of choosing if they would like to have Fog of War on or not.

Good Luck!

Last edited by n00blet on Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

The previous post is the first version of the introductory post to the AA Tournament. Any comments are appreciated, but do not sign up in this thread. As soon as the Tournament thread has been made, kindly reply to that thread with your chosen settings and such

Woohoooooo This has come a ways since back in June when it wouldn't get a reply for weeks on end [/nostalgia]

Geger wrote:A question about the map : Can we limit to 'simple' maps only? I like to join, but I don't like 'complex' maps like Prison Riot, Waterloo, AoR, etc

Just to make a quick point, because I can't say what will happen:

AA games tend to move much slower, and require more long term planning, and less "sweeps" of the board. So many of the more complex maps become more manageable when you can only move so much each turn.

Freemiums: I am all for Freemiums, and made it a point to include them in my tourny, but there is a problem: If someone breaks the rules and games need to be re-done, the Freemiums will still have the other games open. This might create some problems.

I would make sure it is VERY clear that the point of this tournament is to try something new, not declare the best player of AA games. Sure, it will be competitive and fun, but (correct me if I am wrong here) the number one objective is to field test these rules. Let's make sure every signing up knows that there may be mid-tourny rule changes, it may move very slow, and that it isn't necessarily designed around providing the best experience for the players, as tournaments generally are.

My 2 cents, but I have only run one so far, and it isn't even over yet, so what do I know?

SuicidalSnowman wrote:Another suggestion, perhaps you should set the groups so that there is someone who has played AA before in each one, might help with rule explanation and catching any cheating or mistakes earlier.

That might stack the odds though. I think it would be more fair to the people who have never used the setting, if the groups are random.

SuicidalSnowman wrote:Another suggestion, perhaps you should set the groups so that there is someone who has played AA before in each one, might help with rule explanation and catching any cheating or mistakes earlier.

That might stack the odds though. I think it would be more fair to the people who have never used the setting, if the groups are random.

I agree with lance, but to hopefully avoid any problems, I'm planning on PM'ing everyone who gets signed up to get their personal guarantee that they have read and understood the rules (just to be safe)

endar1077 wrote:Question: (and maybe this could be found in the attached thread, but I'm lazy and this is probably something everyone needs to hear anyway) How do bombardments work? Can a territory bombard more than once? If not - I'll need to change maps - I think there's a good chance the game would be unfinishable in that case.

Well...yes, but that map might not work. Since you cannot bombard from a territory you just captured then the nukes would be useless and then you could get stuck in an endless game.

This is a very interesting point... perhaps "Killer Neutrals" should behave differently in Adjacent Attacks?

i.e. Any Killer Neutral territory is allowed to be attacked from in the same turn that it was conquered...

So yeah... killer neutral territs are useless with AA, unless we do something. I suppose making it so those specific territs are exempt from the rule, would fix the problem... It really adds some complications, but I suppose that it's necessary.

Well, I haven't played Citadel yet (or Arms Race for that matter, but I know more about the map). I know that Arms Race has the potential to end in a tie under the AA rules. I suggest just not using that map.

I'd rather have any Killer Neutral territory be able to attack again...

If this is going to be implemented on the site - we can't just have "Don't play these maps"... we need a proper solution...

And the above doesn't take away from the idea on these maps - it will do more so in Maze Craze - but that's just the way it is... but Arms Race - Citadel etc - the idea is to take the territory - use it - then lose it - this works in the whole idea I think.

Actually, I'm starting to like the restricted maps option. We're already not allowed to play certain maps if we're doing 8-player... Why not have certain maps be unplayable with AA? This way, we don't have to compromise the integrity and simplicity of the rule. Just have it behave like 7-players does if you try to play feudal.

Ditocoaf wrote:Actually, I'm starting to like the restricted maps option. We're already not allowed to play certain maps if we're doing 8-player... Why not have certain maps be unplayable with AA? This way, we don't have to compromise the integrity and simplicity of the rule. Just have it behave like 7-players does if you try to play feudal.

I severly think - "not having a solution" - limits the chance of this option being implemented.

Ditocoaf wrote:Actually, I'm starting to like the restricted maps option. We're already not allowed to play certain maps if we're doing 8-player... Why not have certain maps be unplayable with AA? This way, we don't have to compromise the integrity and simplicity of the rule. Just have it behave like 7-players does if you try to play feudal.

I severly think - "not having a solution" - limits the chance of this option being implemented.

C.

I agree we should come up with a proper solution...Giving "killer neutral" territories the ability to attack after being conquered would seem to be the simplest (and probably best) solution, but I fear it might be difficult to implement. Perhaps, in the coding of Adjacent Attacks, "killer neutral" territories could automatically be added to the list of territories that can be attack from. That way, if they are reached, they can be used, but if they aren't reached, the player would have no armies on it, so they wouldn't be able to attack from it.

For the time being of the tournament, I think it would be best to say that "killer neutral" territories can be attacked from on the same turn they are conquered on.

Thoughts?

(I'll probably update the tournament thread tonight....I'm about to go to work at present...)

Ditocoaf wrote:Actually, I'm starting to like the restricted maps option. We're already not allowed to play certain maps if we're doing 8-player... Why not have certain maps be unplayable with AA? This way, we don't have to compromise the integrity and simplicity of the rule. Just have it behave like 7-players does if you try to play feudal.

I severly think - "not having a solution" - limits the chance of this option being implemented.

C.

I'd say that not allowing those maps is a solution. Incompatibility didn't stop them from implementing 8 player games, they simply solved the problem by eliminating the clash.

I think the harder it is to explain this rule to people, the less likely it is to pass judgment. And even if we do implement the "make an exception" option, people will still quite frequently say, "what about KN's" as if they've found something that breaks the rule, and we'll have to explain over and over, "well, the rule applies always, except for when it doesn't."